Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by explaining *why* — templates can affect publishing flows — and by tying that to the double-confirmation gate. It stops short of saying whether the update is reversible or what a partial failure looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, mutation and scope front-loaded, with the confirmation gate second. Slight deduction for the cryptic fragment 'Requires HGRApi Header channel / ChannelOAuthId resolved internally', which mixes two concepts and reads ambiguously.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full schema, an output schema, and rich annotations already in place, the description supplies the missing operational context: the store scoping, the confirmation contract, and the publishing-flow risk. Only the shape of the 'body' payload is left unexplained, which the schema punts on as 'WAPI Templates UpdateRequest body.'

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema lacks: channelOAuthId is resolved internally for a single visible store, and the two booleans exist because template edits propagate into publishing flows. It does not describe what the opaque 'body' UpdateRequest accepts, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates a listing template') plus a scope constraint ('for one visible store/channel'), which separates it from the read-only siblings hgr_list_templates and the different mutation hgr_make_default_template. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives prerequisite conditions (confirmed=true, impactConfirmed=true, channel resolved internally) which implies when the tool is callable, but it never says when to prefer this over hgr_make_default_template or how to obtain the template identity. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.